So what is the purpose behind the post today besides being briefer than the one yesterday?
The title of this post only indicates that is to be shorter than the post I made yesterday. This post is being made on the 27th but it will not be published until the 28th. The only reason for this is to keep the longer post out front a little longer than usual. Most posts are published and replaced fairly soon by my next ramblings.
My observation for today is that politics seem to be less authentic than professional wrestling. It is almost as though they have decided to use professional wrestling style entertainment. This is obvious in the comments readers leave on online newspapers. There is always the back-and-forth, Ford versus Chevy, Steelers versus Cowboys, it's your fault not my fault, type of antics in the responses. It is easy to look back and find fault in anyone's actions, the hard part is finding the right solutions for tomorrow. There is a lot at stake and we all have an interest in the future. It's like we're backing out of control gamblers who keep playing double or nothing with our money.
The goal of this post is to put the tax cuts that are about to expire up for discussion. Oh sure, it will most likely be a discussion with myself unless somehow someone finds this post and feels compelled to leave a comment. It escapes me when people say jobs will not be created if we let the tax cuts expire.
If the tax cuts are in place now shouldn't we see these new jobs?
This is my point, we're not seeing the jobs growth in the tax cuts are in place at this time. If we increase the tax on the wealthy's net income, money they take home as profit or wages, to we expect the wealthy to be creating jobs out of their net pay?
The point must be that if a person with well loses 50 or $60,000 to taxes they will lay someone off to offset their lower net income. This is the only way saying we will lose jobs if we do not extend the tax cuts make sense to me. I should point out that I am all for extending the tax cuts in place for the middle class. It is not hard to figure out why I would be in favor of this. Yes, it is because it has to do with my money. It would not be fair to me to say that because I will not be losing the money someone who has more money deserves to lose theirs. Where I began to favor the wealthy paying more is when we talk about the super wealthy. It blows my mind that there is a yachting industry, an industry based mostly off the personal purchases. I've seen the yachts that cost more money than I could make doing what I do now if I lived 10 lifetimes.
To put this in perspective, I drive a 1995 Astro van that just turned over 275,000 miles. In increase gas tax of five cents a gallon is much more of an impact to me that it is to someone driving a car that cost over $275,000. We could throw in the person driving a 1974 Chevy Caprice and compare them to me. I could be all wrong on this, but I don't think Bill Gates Senior is driving around in a 1974 Chevy Caprice, though it is quite the fine piece of American workmanship. I know when I was younger I was driving the 1969 Mercury Montego, 1974 Pontiac Grand Prix, then a 1950 Chrysler Windsor ( which I still own today). Suddenly I'm not sure what the point is I am trying to make. It has been my experience that when you're not earning as much you can only afford the older less fuel-efficient vehicles. Once you are doing better, you can afford an average vehicle with average mileage. Once you have a lot of money, you can drive an expensive horrible mileage sports car. The point is, I think I just remembered it, we always hurt the lowest earners when we raise taxes. It can be said that it is fair for everyone to pay an extra five cents per gallon of gasoline but this will never be equitable.
Gas taxes suck! I guess this was my point, just kidding. Taxes at the time of purchase are not as fair as taxes on income earned. I think a flat tax, at some rate determined by someone smarter than me, that everyone pays is a fair and equitable way to fund government.
- You earn $10,000 you pay 18% towards taxes.
- You earn $100,000 you pay18% towards taxes.
- You earned $1 million you pay 18% towards taxes.
- You earned $1 billion you pay 18% towards taxes.
Take a minute to visit Old iSkool and The Goal Farm too!
I am sticking with this hands-free data-entry device and still would like someone to volunteer to edit this blog. I'm doing the best I can but it's hard to catch my mistakes and all the times the software doesn't understand me.
The argument for extending tax cuts for the wealthy is that they're the 'job creators' and need the additional income to 'create jobs'. It's such a lame, disingenuous grasp at rationalization that it defies logic. First, there's what you said about the fact that the tax cuts are already in place, so where's the jobs? Then, there's the fact that the tax cuts are for personal income, not business investment. If you're using your money to 'create jobs', it's a business expense which comes directly off the bottom line. You won't be taxed more heavily if you're investing in job creation; you'll only be taxed more heavily if you're taking it home and stuffing it in the mattress. No offense, but our culture, our government, our society created the atmosphere in which you're succeeding, and you can afford it, so pony up. Drop the BS arguments and admit it's nothing more than selfish greed that motivates the desire to continue unaffordable (for the tax payers as a whole) tax cuts. ;)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great comment Mike!
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be more of us that call BS on BS.